ConservativeHome's Platform

A Government worth having: Foreign policy

As part of our Government worth having series we asked a few friends of ConservativeHome to offer 100 word thoughts on how the Conservatives might make some ground on foreign policy.

Alan Mendoza, Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society: With Labour heading down the route of international irrelevance, Conservatives should have the courage to explore where to stand on:

1. ‘Hard’ and ‘soft’ power – As Joseph Nye, author of Soft Power, acknowledges, both variants should be used in tandem. We must therefore be prepared to move beyond diplomacy if it fails to deliver results, and to equip our armed services for such endeavours.
2. Idealism versus realism – William Hague has stressed ideas such as human rights and democracy, but it unclear whether these or other goals outlined, such as improving relations with autocratic allies in the Middle East, will dominate.
3. Traditional multilateralism or coalitions of the willing – The UN has repeatedly failed to resolve major international crises. A Conservative government should therefore be in the vanguard of coalitions circumventing the vetoes of non-democracies shielding dictators and rogue regimes.

Gary Streeter MP, former Chairman of the Party's International Office: Whilst remaining a steadying whisper in the ear of Uncle Sam, we should carve out our unique British brand of soft power with a hard edge.  We should make the promotion of good governance and democracy building the centre ground of our policy. Diplomacy, aid and know-how, backed up by the excellence of our armed forces, should be our instruments.

We should shift at least £100 million from the aid budget to pour into robust democracy building programmes, especially in the Commonwealth. British aid should be more closely linked to foreign policy and should be withdrawn where a recipient country government falls short. We should be champions for the reform of multi-lateral organisations including the EU and UN.

Ben Rogers: We have a “responsibility” to “protect” in Burma

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist specialising in South Asia. He works for the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide and serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. He has visited Burma and its border areas more than 20 times, and is the author of A Land Without Evil: Stopping the Genocide of Burma’s Karen People (Monarch, 2004). He was Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election.  He also blogs at CentreRight.com.

Bob Dylan asked the right questions. And following the tragic destruction caused by Cyclone Nargis in Burma nine days ago, the words of his song Blowing in the Wind are eerily appropriate:

“How many times must a man look up before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?
How many years can a mountain exist before it's washed to the sea?
Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head, pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, the answer is blowin' in the wind.”

The death toll in Burma is in the hundreds of thousands, and rising. The cyclone itself killed several thousand – but the regime is responsible for even more deaths. India provided 41 warnings to the regime before the cyclone struck, but the regime did nothing to prepare the people. During the cyclone, when 36 prisoners in Insein Jail tried to get out of their cells to avoid being crushed, they were shot dead. Then, following the devastation, the regime initially refused all offers of international aid. Subsequently, it accepted aid – but continues to refuse access to aid workers. This past weekend, as the bodies piled up, the regime shut up shop for a three day public holiday.

Ben Rogers: A manifesto for freedom from beyond the grave

Benedict Rogers reviews Benazir Bhutto’s new book Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West . Ben is a human rights activist specialising in South Asia, serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, and was the Candidate for Durham in 2005.

Three months ago today, a light of freedom, moderation, tolerance and hope was snuffed out. By no means a pure, perfect light – indeed a light that sometimes flickered dimly – but nevertheless, a light of liberty and peace in a land of growing extremism, authoritarianism and violence. On the morning of her assassination, Benazir Bhutto had delivered the final edits of her book, Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West, to her publisher. I can think of no more fitting tribute to her than to read her new book, published since her death, to reflect on the challenges she sets out, and to implement the ideas she proposes.

Benazir Bhutto’s book is essential reading for everyone interested in our world today, for it addresses three of the greatest challenges our generation faces: militant Islamism, dictatorship, and poverty.  While much of the book draws on the history of her own country, Pakistan, and her personal experiences, it goes much, much further. She plunges into theology, presenting an alternative interpretation of Islam from that preached by al-Qaeda, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and other such extremists. Drawing on the Quran, she argues forcefully that the extremists have hijacked a religion of peace. Indeed, she goes further, contending that Islam is not only compatible with democracy and human rights, but actually helped birth them. Contrary to popular perception, she claims, “Islam codified the rights of women. The Quran elevates the status of women to that of men. It guarantees women civil, economic and political rights.” In regard to other religions, she writes, “the Quran does not simply preach tolerance of other religions; it also acknowledges that salvation can be achieved in all monotheistic religions. Freedom of choice, especially in matters of faith, is a cornerstone of quranic values.”

Ben Rogers: We can mend our society if we acknowledge how broken it is

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist specialising in South Asia. He serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and was Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election.

Teenage shootings, knife crime, binge drinking, record alcohol-related hospital admissions, the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe, road rage, crumbling public services, poor school discipline, debt, obesity and poor diets, rising abortion rates and a dramatic increase in births outside marriage – who can possibly say this is not a “broken society”?

The news headlines in the final days of 2007 were deeply depressing. According to the Daily Telegraph on New Year’s Eve, over 500 binge drinkers every day end up in hospital. Alcohol-related hospital admissions have risen by a third in a just two years. Over 13 million people are drinking too much.

The previous day, we were informed that every year over 50,000 girls under 18 get pregnant – the highest rate in western Europe. We also have the worst rates for obesity and junk food in Europe.

And earlier in December, it was reported that “most British babies are now born outside of marriage”.

We are living in a broken society, and David Cameron has been spot on in saying so.

Ben Rogers: Benazir Bhutto’s death is a tragedy for Pakistan, a crisis for the world

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist specialising in South Asia. He works for the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide, serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and was Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election. In 2005 he visited Pakistan with Labour MP David Drew, and met then Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and other senior Pakistani political leaders.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is not only a tragedy for Pakistan – it is a significant crisis for the world. It cannot, and must not, be seen as simply an "internal" matter for Pakistan.

Benazir Bhutto’s murder plunges one of the most strategic and volatile countries in the world into deeper chaos. Pakistan is a country where terrorism, Islamist ideology, nuclear weapons, human rights and liberal democratic values meet at a crossroads. No one who believes in liberal values – of all shades – can be anything other than appalled by her death. And all of us need to take militant Islamism – both in its ideological and its violent forms – seriously.

I have just got off the phone with a close friend who is one of Pakistan’s leading human rights activists. He is expecting the worst. Although the streets in his city were calm when we spoke, he knows the situation will deteriorate rapidly as the news of Benazir’s killing spreads. I have also been in contact with another friend, a leader of the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance, who was with Benazir at the rally when she was killed. He, and members of his movement, had been invited to join her as representatives of Pakistan’s religious minorities – Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and others – in an effort to unite to build a Pakistan based on equal rights for all, religious freedom and tolerance, women’s rights and secular liberal democracy – a vision in keeping with that of the country’s founder, Mohammad ali Jinnah. I have written about the violations of human rights faced by minorities previously on this site.

Ben Rogers: The Foreign Office has a 'How Can I Not Help You Today?' culture

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist specialising in South Asia. He serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and was Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election.

Let me get straight to the point. With some admirable exceptions, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) disappoints me – to put it, as they say, diplomatically. I don’t want to cause a diplomatic incident, but words like “unoriginality”, “inflexibility”, “reactiveness”, and “a lack of imagination, creativity and soul” spring to mind.

As I say, there are some superb exceptions. I have been fortunate to come across some courageous and extremely helpful diplomats who, whether at the FCO in London or in ‘post’ in a particular country, have proved to be valuable friends. On some occasions they have, through their interventions, provided protection to dissidents and human rights defenders in countries ruled by brutal regimes. But – and it is a big ‘but’ – such people are few and far between in the FCO. It is like the old nursery rhyme about a little girl – when they are good, they are very very good, but when they are bad, they are horrid.

Let me provide a few anecdotes to illustrate my point, before I proceed to the contrasts with other foreign ministries and some potential solutions. In my work as a human rights activist, I deal with the FCO on an almost daily basis. With some exceptions, I find the culture is a “can’t-do” culture. An American friend summed up his experience of the FCO with the motto: “What can I NOT do for you today?”

At the height of the crisis in Burma in September, I was suddenly summoned to a meeting with the responsible minister, Meg Munn MP, at an hour’s notice. I didn’t mind that it was short notice, as I was pleased the FCO was finally waking up and wishing to engage. I jumped on a train. Unsurprisingly in modern Britain, my train was delayed due to a signal failure. I got to Waterloo and hopped in a cab. Again, unsurprisingly, despite Mr Livingstone’s beloved congestion charge, I got stuck in traffic. Despite these hurdles, I arrived at the FCO reception in King Charles Street only five minutes late. But it was there – not on our railways or in our congested traffic – that I met my biggest obstacle. The conversation with the young – and, to put it with a lack of diplomacy, gormless – receptionist went as follows:

“I have an appointment with the Minister, Meg Munn, at 5pm. I am sorry I am a few minutes late,” I said.

“But I have locked the cupboard,” she replied. “It’s after 5pm.”

I stared at her in disbelief and she stared at me with an even greater degree of gormlessness than was natural or becoming. Eventually an idea dawned on her. For her, it was the height of initiative and imagination – perhaps even idealism.

“I could …”, she paused for effect, “… phone up for you.”

“Well that would be much appreciated,” I said, amazed at how calmly I said it.

“But I can’t give you a pass. It’s after 5pm,” she added.

It was 5.05pm. With that, she phoned up, and then finished putting her nail varnish in her handbag and left.

Ben Rogers: Musharraf, collect your marbles please

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist specialising in South Asia. He works for the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide, serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and was Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election. He has visited Pakistan twice. 

President Pervez Musharraf claims that his decision to call a state of emergency in Pakistan, suspending the constitution and restricting the media, is part of his efforts to crack down on extremism and terrorism. Pull the other one!

If it were truly part of the war on terror, why on earth has he jailed hundreds of lawyers, put the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Religion and Belief, the Director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and former international cricketer Imran Khan under house arrest, and failed to go after key pro-Taliban and pro-al Qaeda groups? As Asma Jahangir, UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Religion and Belief and a prominent lawyer in Pakistan, put it after she was put under house arrest for 90 days, Musharraf has “lost his marbles”.

Let no one be in any doubt how serious and precarious the situation in Pakistan has become. As I have argued previously on this site, Pakistan is an incubator of terrorism. The security situation in Pakistan is a cause for grave concern. On my first visit to the country, in 2004, I missed a bomb by literally five minutes, so I know the risks and I don’t under-estimate the challenge.

Ben Rogers: The Two Great Objects haven’t changed

Benedict Rogers, a former PPC and human rights activist specialising in South Asia with Christian Solidarity Worldwide and the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, looks at what Wilberforce might commit himself to if he were here today.

In October 1787, William Wilberforce wrote that “God Almighty has sent before me two great objects: the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners”. Almost 220 years later, the challenges facing our society remain the same.

While Wilberforce and his friends abolished the transatlantic slave trade, and contributed to the reformation of society, slavery and social breakdown remain rife. Slavery persists in various forms – human trafficking, forced labour, sexual slavery and the forcible conscription of child soldiers – and could be extended in definition to include millions of people “enslaved” under tyrannical, brutal dictators. Binge drinking, gang violence, drugs, family breakdown and the loss of respect for others are our modern-day equivalent of the domestic problems in 18th century Britain – we need our own “reformation of manners”.

Ben Rogers: Standing up to Islamism and speaking up for persecuted Muslims

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist and serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. He was the Conservative Party Parliamentary Candidate in the City of Durham in 2005, and travels regularly on fact-finding visits to countries such as Burma and Pakistan.

Last week the Islamists gained a lot of attention. There was the Centre for Social Cohesion’s excellent report on Islamist literature in British public libraries. Then there was The Times front-page story on Sheikh Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq. And then there was Osama bin Laden’s greeting.

Yet despite these news reports in the past week – and despite 9/11, 7/7, and the attempted bombings this summer in the West End and Glasgow – much of Britain, and particularly middle-class, liberal, progressive Britain, has still not woken up to the challenge of Islamism on our own doorstep. 

As a human rights campaigner and someone wishing to pursue a career in British politics, I view the issue of militant Islamism with the utmost concern. The teachings of Islamism are contrary to all the values I cherish: freedom, human dignity, equal rights for all. 

Ben Rogers: Is our Foreign Secretary Miliband or Millipede?

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist specialising in South Asia. He works for the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide and serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. He has visited Burma and its border areas 18 times, and is the author of A Land Without Evil: Stopping the Genocide of Burma's Karen People.

My dictionary defines a millipede as a "small crawling creature with many legs".   That describes British foreign policy, and the civil servants who implement it, perfectly. Crawling, because it inches along slower than the Number 52 bus in rush hour. And with "many legs" because Britain has all sorts of opportunities – but it doesn't use them. It is one of the few countries which holds key positions in almost all major multilateral organisations – the UN, the EU, NATO, the G8 and the Commonwealth. Yet still our diplomats sleep. And over them David Miliband presides – and on one issue remains silent.

Over the past two weeks, the largest protests in a decade have been taking place in Burma. They have spread throughout the country, beyond Rangoon. Hundreds of people have been marching in protest at fuel price hikes. I wrote about it on this site last week.

Ben Rogers: Burma on the move - join the protests in solidarity

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist specialising in South Asia. He works for the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide and serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. He has visited Burma and its border areas 18 times, and is the author of A Land Without Evil: Stopping the Genocide of Burma’s Karen People (Monarch, 2004).

Tomorrow, across Burma, people are expected to be staging a mass protest. It is possible that this could be the biggest demonstration since 1988 – the year when thousands of peaceful protestors were slaughtered by the Burma Army. A demonstration will be held in London in support of the brave people of Burma – from 12noon until 1pm tomorrow, at the Burmese Embassy at 19A Charles Street, London W1 (nearest tube: Green Park) - see map here.

This latest movement began on Sunday, when more than 400 Burmese people led by prominent pro-democracy activists staged a rare and courageous protest in Rangoon against massive fuel price rises.  “We are staging this performance to reflect the hardship our people are facing due to the government's fuel price hike,” said Min Ko Naing, a leader of the 88 Generation Students’ Group. Burma’s ruling junta, the State Peace & Development Council (SPDC), imposed a surprise 100 percent hike on fuel at state-owned gas stations last week. The move was followed by increases in bus fares and commodity prices. The government did not give reasons for the increase.

According to a statement from the Burmese Democratic Movement Association:

"The people's suffering has got to a level where they are no longer able to live their lives in any way normally: they are no longer able to travel to work or provide basic necessities. The recent protests are the only option the people feel is left to them to request that the SPDC retract their orders regarding the price hikes.”

I wrote about the 1988 movement, and the current situation in Burma, on this site just two weeks ago. If you read that article, and look at what is happening in Burma right now, I hope you will agree that the brave people of Burma deserve our support. The best way of expressing solidarity with them would be to join them tomorrow. Please come.

Ben Rogers: On the 60th anniversary of Pakistan’s creation it’s make your mind up time, President Musharraf

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist specialising in South Asia. He works for the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide, serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and was Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election. In 2005 he visited Pakistan with Labour MP David Drew, and met Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and other senior Pakistani political leaders.

Between 50,000 and 100,000 people are expected to gather today in Lahore, Pakistan, to mark the 60th anniversary of a speech by the nation’s founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

In that speech, on 11 August 1947, just three days before Pakistan was born, Jinnah told the first constituent assembly:

“You are free. You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State … We are starting with this fundamental principal, that we are all citizens and citizens of one state.”

Today, thousands of people from throughout the country, from different religious groups – Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsees, as well as sympathetic moderate Muslims – will participate in a rally at the Minar-e-Pakistan, or “National Monument”, a minaret on the site where the Lahore Declaration was passed in 1940 calling for a separate state of Pakistan. The event, organised by the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance (APMA), has one purpose: to remind the nation, and the world, of Jinnah’s vision.

Jinnah never intended for Pakistan to be founded on religious grounds. Of course, the founding fathers wanted a homeland for Muslims after India received independence from Britain, because they saw India as two nations, Hindu and Muslim. But it was not as clear-cut as that. Jinnah’s vision was for a free society in which citizens of all religious backgrounds were equal, a constitution free of religious discrimination, and a modern progressive democracy with an independent judiciary and electoral commission.

So much has gone wrong in Pakistan in the past 60 years. According to APMA, “Christians and other religious minorities are made second class citizens” as extremist Islamism has taken root. As the influence of groups like Jamaat-e-Islami, founded by Maulana Mawdudi, and the pro-Taliban pro-al Qaeda coalition the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), has risen, minorities’ rights have been “negated” and religious freedom “curtailed”. Their places of worship are increasingly subject to violent attack, and in some parts of the country they face threats to convert to Islam or be killed. Religious minorities in Pakistan today are, says APMA, “persecuted, victimised, terrorised and hated due to their faith”. APMA’s Executive Secretary Group Captain Cecil Chaudhry says that “in 60 years we have drifted in the opposite direction from what Jinnah envisaged”. Chaudhry should know – despite being a highly decorated fighter pilot and war veteran in the Pakistan Air Force, he was denied promotion simply because he is a Christian.

Ben Rogers: A tribute to Burma's brave people

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist specialising in South Asia. He works for the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide and serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. He has visited Burma and its border areas 18 times, and is the author of A Land Without Evil: Stopping the Genocide of Burma’s Karen People (Monarch, 2004). He was Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election.

On 8 August, 1988 thousands of unarmed, peaceful Burmese civilians were slaughtered by the Burma Army – for demonstrating for democracy. Today, we pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice, we remember their loved ones and those who survived the massacre, and we join with the Burmese people in reminding the world that the suffering continues. People will gather in Berkely Square, London at 12.30 today to march to the Burmese Embassy in Charles Street (nearest tube: Green Park), where they will demonstrate in memory of the “8888” massacre.

Ben Rogers: Like an army, let us learn some discipline, unite and fight for our vision

Benedict Rogers is Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. He is a journalist, author and human rights activist, and was Conservative Party Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in 2005.  He responds to last night's Platform from Ali Miraj.

Ali Miraj's outburst is the latest in a season of stupidity by Conservatives. I have seen feverish insanity capture the minds of Tories before, but usually there has been some logical explanation. Margaret Thatcher, no matter how much we may love her, provoked rebellion as a result of Poll Tax riots and Europe. Iain Duncan Smith made his party despair because, although he was shaping the right agenda, his ability to communicate it effectively was lacking. While even in those circumstances the sight of frenzied foaming-at-the-mouth Tories throwing their toys out of the pram was unpleasant, it was just about comprehensible. But the behaviour of Tories in the past month or two has been insanity beyond description. The lunatics have broken out of their cells and, if we are not careful, they may recapture control of the asylum.

I agree that the Brown Bounce has been bigger than expected. I agree the grammar schools row was a fiasco. I agree that in Ealing Southall, it was a mistake to raise expectations too much, it was a mistake to list the candidate as coming from “David Cameron’s Conservatives”, and it was a mistake to force Tony Lit on the local association. I watched Lit being interviewed at 3am when the result was declared, and on camera he was desperately unimpressive. His answers were incoherent and banal. But I did not leap onto the airwaves to say so. I kept quiet.

We are having a rough few weeks. But that does not give everyone the excuse to throw a mega-tantrum and start talking in ludicrous terms about a change of leadership. Yes, our lead in the opinion polls has been overturned and we are now trailing Labour. But the situation is only irredeemable if we continue behaving in the way some Tories have in recent weeks.

Benedict Rogers: David Cameron deserves loyalty and patience

Benedict Rogers serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and was Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election. A human rights activist and journalist, he argues that despite some rough seas David Cameron is on the right course.

There are wallies in all walks of life, and in all political parties – but the Conservative Party appears to have its fair share of them.

What is it with some Conservatives? Do they not want to win? Do they not know a good thing when they see it? Or do they just love the merry-go-round of leadership elections, by-election disasters, General Election slaughters and Comic Relief-worthy MPs? The jitteriness and ill-discipline conspire to produce some Conservatives who are a bizarre mix of Magic Roundabout and Monty Python.

Benedict Rogers: Pakistan is an incubator for terrorism

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist specialising in South Asia. He works for the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide, focusing on Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, serves as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and was Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election.

The rise of extremism in Pakistan is close to reaching crisis point. In North-West Frontier Province, Christians have received ultimatums to convert to Islam or face "dire consequences". Last week, a Christian was sentenced to death for "blasphemy". On Easter Sunday, a 12 year-old Christian girl was kidnapped and repeatedly gang-raped. One of her attackers told his accomplices: "Don’t hesitate to rape a Christian girl. Even if she dies, no one will get us. Her poor parents cannot pursue us."

Earlier in the year, a 14 year-old Christian girl was abducted at gunpoint, raped and beaten. Her attacker, believed to be connected to extremist groups, told her to convert to Islam.

Ben Rogers: Burma, the case for sanctions

Benedict Rogers is Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, and was Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in 2005. He works for the human rights charity Christian Solidarity Worldwide , and is the author of A Land Without Evil: Stopping the Genocide of Burma’s Karen People.

I have just returned from my 13^th visit to the Thai-Burma border – which, when added to my visits to the India-Burma border, the China-Burma border and Rangoon and Mandalay mean I have so far made a total of 17 visits to the Burma region since 2000. On each visit, I have talked with people who have seen their villages burned, loved ones killed, women raped and tortured, and have been used for forced labour. This time was no different.

In a camp of 3,000 internally displaced people (IDPs) on the banks of the Salween River, I met a woman whose 15 year-old son had been killed by the Burma Army. He had been tied to a tree, his head cut off. I met another woman whose husband had been mutilated and killed. Burma Army soldiers had gouged out his eyes, tore off his lips and cut off his ears. And I met a third woman whose husband had been hung upside down from a tree, tortured, his eyes gouged out, and then drowned. This is the terrible truth about Burma today.

Ben Rogers: Empower the "little people" to act while the dinosaurs snore...

Benedict Rogers is Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Human Rights Commission and works with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, an international human rights organisation. He is the author of "A Land Without Evil: Stopping the Genocide of Burma’s Karen People" and was Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in 2005.

I am angry. I am angry at a murderous regime which is carrying out crimes against humanity and attempted genocide with impunity. And I am angry that the world still remains largely silent and inactive.

Let me qualify that last sentence. When I say “the world”, what I mean really is the world’s governments, the United Nations, the European Union and – and this is perhaps the worst part – major relief organisations. Ordinary people – once they become aware of the situation – have responded on the whole with extraordinary generosity. Earlier this week, I took part in a demonstration at the Burmese Embassy in London – and was joined by twenty or so ordinary concerned citizens. My sister, a violinist, played the theme tune of Schindler’s List, which she dedicated to the Karen. People have written letters and given money. It is the people with power who should be ashamed of themselves.

In Burma today, a holocaust is unfolding before our eyes. In recent weeks, in Karen State, over 15,500 civilians have been displaced, according to the Free Burma Rangers. The numbers have been rising almost daily. Villages have been torched, rice barns destroyed and the Burma Army has laid landmines around abandoned villages to stop people returning from their homes. Civilians have been shot at point-blank range. People have been beheaded and mutilated. A nine year-old girl was shot, and her father and grandmother killed. The Burma Army is hunting these people down like animals. And what have these civilians done to deserve this? Nothing, except desire to live in freedom, peace and dignity.

According to the Karen Human Rights Group, the crisis looks set to escalate still further. At least 27 Burma Army battalions are now poised to destroy hundreds of villages in Papun District, which would, they say, “doubtless lead to the forced displacement of tens of thousands more.” These are, they report, “attacks against undefended villages with the objective of flushing villagers out of the hills to bring them under direct military control so they can be used to support the Burma Army with food and labour.”

Ben Rogers: Mrs Beckett - prove us wrong

Benedict Rogers is Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Human Rights Commission and works with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, an international human rights organisation. He is the author of "A Land Without Evil: Stopping the Genocide of Burma’s Karen People"  (Monarch, 2004) and was Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the City of Durham in 2005.

Their looks said it all. When the news flashed up on my screen that Margaret Beckett was Foreign Secretary, I told my colleagues. One by one heads popped up, a bemused look on each face. One, a solid Labour voter, thought it was a joke. “No, come on, you are joking. Who is really Jack Straw’s replacement?” Margaret Beckett, I assured her. The conversation went in circles like this several times until she realised I was not joking. Others were equally astonished. A friend from another human rights organisation phoned me from his holiday in Cyprus to find out the news. He too thought I was joking. A friend in Washington DC called me too. “Who is Margaret Beckett and why has she been made foreign secretary?” he asked. Britain’s first female foreign secretary has a clear credibility problem. But she has an opportunity to prove us all wrong.

When she looks at her ‘to do’ list – Iran, Iraq, China, Russia, Afghanistan, the United States, the EU, India – she may think she already has enough on her plate. But if she wants to win respect for courage, creativity and integrity, there is another, forgotten but important item she could add to her list: Burma.

For too long British Foreign Secretaries have failed the long-suffering people of Burma. Former Burmese political prisoners have told me that they do not see Britain as being on their side. One asked me why it took the UK over two months to decide whether or not to support bringing Burma to the UN Security Council for the first time, on the recommendation of a report commissioned by former Czech President Vaclav Havel and former South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu when it took the US just one day. Another wondered why the British Council in Rangoon charges $20 a year for access to a library consisting of books on 19^th century flora and fauna, when the American Centre charges $2 a year, for a library packed with books on democracy and human rights. Margaret Beckett now has an opportunity to change all that.  

Burma is ruled by one of the world’s most brutal regimes. An illegal junta which took power in a coup and ignored the will of the people in the 1990 elections, it has locked up Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi  - and almost assassinated her three years ago.

Ben Rogers: If anyone can, Cameron can

Ben was the Conservative Party Candidate in the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election. He is a writer and international human rights activist. He is the co-author of a foreign policy paper, New Ground: Engaging People with the Conservative Party through a bold, principled and imaginative foreign policy, available online at www.newground.org.uk.  If you would like to contribute a post for Platform - perhaps advocating your ideal Tory leadership candidate - please email your suggestion to conservativehome@mac.com.

The Conservative Party needs to change – wholesale. Its culture, attitudes, tone, language, perceptions, image, brand and reputation. It needs to stop reliving the past and start looking to the future. It needs to combine vision and idealism with real solutions that will make a real difference to people’s lives. It needs to be generous and positive in tone and spirit. It needs to have a message that uplifts and excites. We need to work for the day when to be Conservative and to be compassionate are perceived by the public not as two contradictory mindsets, but as one entirely natural political identity. And we need to find a leader who can do this.

I stood as the Conservative candidate in the City of Durham in the General Election. I am a human rights activist, and during the campaign I talked about injustice, oppression, poverty. I highlighted trade justice. I called for a foreign policy that promoted democracy and freedom. My themes were “life, liberty, justice and responsibility”.

Not a day went by without someone telling me I was in the wrong party. People told me they really liked what I was saying, they wanted to vote for me, but they could not bring themselves to vote for my party. A handful of lifelong Labour supporters did switch, but even when they did they made it clear what they thought of my party. Most could not fathom the idea that I was a Conservative. I could almost see the sparks bouncing off people’s brains as they were short-circuited by my stories of times spent with refugees, torture victims and dissidents in countries like Burma, East Timor, Pakistan and China. The astonished whisper – “He’s a Conservative?” – was audible.

It wasn’t just my views on international issues that confused people. I was the only candidate from Durham City to take part in a discussion with the homeless in Newcastle. The look of surprise on the street-sleepers’ faces – “the Tory showed up, and Labour and the Lib Dems didn’t” – was incredible. I went round bars and pubs with students, and just chatted to them over a pint – “you’re the Tory candidate?”, they asked incredulously.

I don’t want this to happen again. At the next General Election, I don’t want voters to be surprised that I am a Tory. I don’t want to be seen by voters as an oddity – a rare “Tory who cares”. I want it to seem natural to everyone, as it does to me, that I should be a Tory and a human rights activist. I want voters to know instinctively that the Conservative Party is for them, that we have a positive vision for how to make our country and our world better, that we can offer hope. I want people to know that Conservatives champion the under-privileged, the oppressed, the disadvantaged. But for that to happen, the party needs to change.

Most of the leadership candidates say this, in one form or another. But which of them truly believes it? Which of them knows in their heart what needs to be done? And which of them has the energy, enthusiasm, vision, intelligence and character to do it? Having watched the various candidates over recent weeks, I have to conclude that the only one who shows all these characteristics with any depth is David Cameron.

“Britain aches for new hope, fresh ideas and reform with results,” are the words with which Cameron begins his leadership manifesto. The party “must look, feel, think and behave like a completely new organization,” he continues. We need to develop “a shared responsibility,” a belief that “we’re all in this together”, a realization that “there’s a ‘we’ in our politics as well as a ‘me’”. This is language I have not heard from his rivals. And on international issues, he said, Britain is at its best when it “engages ethically and enthusiastically with the wider world”. That means “when the Conservative Party talks about foreign affairs it can’t just be Gibraltar and Zimbabwe. We have got to show as much passion about Darfur and the millions of people living on less than a dollar a day in sub-Saharan African who are getting poorer while we are getting richer.” Music to my ears.

Speaking entirely without notes, Cameron offered something I haven’t heard from the other contenders. Hope. Vision. Inspiration. He represents the future, not the past. And more than that, he indicates a new style of politics. The days of negative campaigning should be put behind us, he said. The party should not go into election campaigns simply sniping at its opponents. When Labour does something right, we should support it. On global warming, for example, the problem is of such importance that the parties should work together in an independent commission to find solutions. That is a style of politics that will re-engage people.

Some may say that Cameron will throw out the baby with the bathwater, that he will abandon our core values. But that is nonsense. The values that make us Conservatives – of freedom, limited government, lower taxes, personal responsibility, the family and national sovereignty – will not change, and no one is proposing that they should. They are the values I am passionate about. They are the values that define us as Conservatives. But Cameron argues, and he is right, that on their own these values are not enough. People do not realize that they are our shared values – or else they don’t see how those values are translated into results for them. We need to communicate and apply our values in ways that people will respond to. They need to be “recast according to the spirit of the age and the challenges of our times”. Personal responsibility, for example, “must not mean selfish individualism”. National sovereignty should not imply “isolation and xenophobia”. Limited government must never mean that “the weak are left behind”.

Cameron’s two weaknesses, according to his critics, are that he is an old-Etonian toff and is too young. But these criticisms in themselves are shallow. As he has said, what matters is not where you come from, but where you are going to. And age is irrelevant if the alternative is someone much older and more experienced but lacking the will to change.  It is also worth remembering that Cameron will be 42 by the time of the next election – not much younger than Tony Blair when he became Prime Minister. John F Kennedy was 43 when he became US President in 1960.

David Davis’ slogan is “modern Conservatism” and Ken Clarke’s is “Time to Win”. Both of them talk about change, but their true belief in its importance is reflected by the word’s absence from their slogans. Only Cameron, with “Change to Win”, is a true believer. With his rigour, vigour, enthusiasm, charm, intelligence and humanity – if anyone can take the party through the radical change it needs, it is David Cameron.

Ben Rogers: Ken's big idea is... Ken

Ben was the Conservative Party Candidate in the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election. He is a writer and international human rights activist. He is the co-author of a foreign policy paper, New Ground: Engaging People with the Conservative Party through a bold, principled and imaginative foreign policy, available online at www.newground.org.uk.  If you would like to contribute a post for Platform please email your suggestion to conservativehome@mac.com.

If the qualifications for the leader of a political party are supreme self-confidence, bloke-ish affability, a slightly ruffled sweaty appearance, an appealing disregard for spin, a reputation as a “big beast” and a bruiser in politics, hush puppies, a cigar and a pint of beer in the pub, then there is absolutely no question about it: Ken Clarke has to be the next leader of the Conservative Party. But if politics is about more than just “personality”, then I have some problems with Ken. If we believe the party needs to look to the future, not relive the past, and if even having just one new “idea” might come in handy, and if communicating policies through human stories rather than age-old statistics is desirable, then Ken has not convinced me that he is the answer.

Almost everybody likes Ken. The press tell us that the voters overwhelmingly want us to choose him as our leader. Labour and the Lib Dems fear him more than any other leadership candidate. With such accolades, I went to hear him speak at the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) wanting to like him. I came away sorely disappointed.

For a start, even Ken’s strengths failed to shine on the night I saw him. He read his speech; there was no oratorical inspiration; he looked and sounded like a crumpled has-been.

Crucially, I was on the look-out for some kind of new idea. It didn’t need to be a “Big Idea”. It didn’t need to be original. Just some suggestion of a recognition that the party needs to think differently – something to excite and engage. What I heard instead was a re-hash of ‘70s and ‘80s politics.

He devoted the first half of his speech to a detailed critique of Tony Blair. But he was telling us what we all knew. While Blair-bashing may be entertaining for the party faithful, in the setting of the CSJ it seemed inappropriate. Even his few jokes about Blair weren’t funny, they were rather flat. What I wanted to hear was not what was wrong, but what he thought he could do to put things right. To quote Frank Dobson’s record as health secretary when we are now several Health Secretaries later and into Labour’s third term seemed old-hat. To litter every few sentences with “Margaret never did …,” or “Margaret used to ….”, or worse “When I was Secretary of State …” seemed irrelevant. And when he quoted Jim Callaghan I almost snoozed off my seat.

It wasn’t that I found anything in his speech disagreeable. It was just that there was nothing new. There was no intellectual rigour, no excitement, no sense of the future. I agreed with him when he said that before we engage in radical reform of the public services, we need to win back the trust of the people – and that we have “no licence from the voters to shake up public services because many people still suspect that we just want to privatize them”. Well we have no licence from the voters because we lost the election. What we need to do is, on the one hand, show that we can be trusted with the public services, but on the other hand show that we have solutions to the problems that currently exist. He focused on the former, on an agenda of almost no change.

I have problems with Ken on three other fronts, all which relate to foreign policy. First, of course there is Europe and I won’t rehash here the age-old arguments we are all familiar with. Second, there is Iraq. However terrible the situation in Iraq is today, I disagree with Ken’s view that the war was a mistake. Mistakes were certainly made in its conduct, and we should have had a plan for post-war Iraq before we took action. But I still believe that we were right to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Not only is Ken at odds with most of his party on this issue, he would do incredible damage to our relations with the United States if he is elected. Already it appears that Conservative-Republican relations, which should naturally be strong, have cooled. To have a blatantly anti-war leader would endanger the relationship completely.

Third, there is Ken’s role as deputy chairman of British American Tobacco (BAT). I have no objection to tobacco companies per se, nor to Ken’s right to make money. However, BAT was a major investor in Burma, a country ruled by one of the world’s most brutal – and illegal – military dictatorships. Ken defended BAT’s investments in public, and became a target for demonstrators himself. It strikes me that was a serious error of judgment. Protestors stood outside BAT headquarters in 2003 wearing Ken Clarke masks. Eventually, BAT pulled out from Burma, but only as a result of public pressure.

I am deeply involved in Burma’s struggle for human rights and democracy. I travel twice a year to the ethnic groups in the jungles of eastern Burma, the Karen, Karenni and Shan, to document human rights violations. What is happening there amounts to crimes against humanity and genocide. Widespread rape, forced labour, torture, killings, destruction of villages and crops are the crimes of the Burma Army which rules the land. Burma has the largest number of forcibly conscripted child soldiers in the world. The military regime is illegal. It held elections in 1990, which were overwhelmingly won by the National League for Democracy (NLD) and Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. But the regime refused to accept the results, imprisoned the victors and intensified its grip on power. Aung San Suu Kyi has been held under house arrest for most of 10 years. The idea that we could elect as leader of my party a man who did business with the Generals who terrorise Burma is particularly hard for me to stomach. In addition, I fear it could rebound on him and embarrass the party.

On top of all this, I was shocked by Ken’s dismissive answer to a question on the environment at the CSJ. Instead of recognizing the importance of environmental issues, and the work we need to do to win trust on this front, he emphasized the need to reassure business that we were still their friends and had not become a bunch of sandal-wearing hippies. I am paraphrasing there, but it more or less sums up what he said. And I think such failure to think afresh is dangerous.

No candidate in the leadership contest is perfect. They all have strengths and weaknesses, and Ken has his strengths of course. But if we do not elect a leader who can enthuse people with a vision, we will not make headway. If we do not look to the future instead of trying to recapture the past, we will fail. Short-term voter appeal will not win us a long-term revival. There must be more to politics than a cigar, hush-puppies and a pint of beer. I looked for an idea from Ken. Instead, I found, that in his campaign the idea is Ken. Like a French king, he conveyed his belief that “l’etat, s’est moi”. That’s not enough.

Ben Rogers: A new word to sum up Conservatism: “Dignity”

In the second of the Platform series Benedict Rogers proposes that the idea of dignity should shape and describe Conservatism.  Ben was the Conservative Party Candidate in the City of Durham in the 2005 General Election. He is a writer and international human rights activist. He is the co-author of a foreign policy paper, New Ground: Engaging People with the Conservative Party through a bold, principled and imaginative foreign policy, available online at www.newground.org.uk.  If you would like to contribute a post for Platform please email your suggestion to conservativehome@mac.com.

In the wake of our third election defeat, the Conservative Party is once again going through a period of review, debate, reflection – and yet another leadership election.  At the heart of the review is, of course, the party’s image – the tone, attitude, language that it conveys. For while substance should never be sacrificed for style, language does matter. Indeed, it is not core Conservative beliefs that are the problem – it is our inability to communicate them that has failed us.

Thinking about this whilst roaming the streets of the northern Spanish city of Santiago de Compostela, Christendom’s third most important place of pilgrimage, a new word came to me which, for me, encapsulates what Conservatism is all about. The word is “dignity”.

For too long, we have limited ourselves to using words like “freedom” and “choice”. I believe passionately in those values, but I have realized that they are not in themselves the pinnacle of Conservatism, but rather a sub-set of a greater value – “dignity”.

“Freedom” and “choice” by themselves convey to some people an almost selfish, individualistic mentality. They are associated with a particular libertarian mindset that would give everyone the “freedom” to do whatever they like – to use hard drugs, to have abortions on demand, to allow assisted suicides – regardless of their effects on the “freedom” of others to live in a society free of crime and social breakdown.

Instead, “freedom” at its best is grounded in a profound respect for the “dignity” of others. I am free, when I recognise my neighbour’s right to enjoy his life, as well as my own. Respect for the “dignity of the individual” is the opposite of individualism, because it recognises that we are an inter-connected society, a community, and that one man’s freedom rests on the respect that another man gives it. No man is an island.

“Dignity” can then be applied to all areas of policy more effectively than unfettered “freedom” and “choice”. It provides those values with a context. It is because we have not placed enough emphasis on respect for the dignity of the individual in our hospitals that we have bedpans un-emptied, wards mixed and patients on trolleys in hospital corridors. It is because we do not respect the dignity of the individual enough that we have truancy, ill-discipline and violence in our schools. It is as a result of a breakdown in respect for the dignity of the individual that we have binge drinking and anti-social behaviour. It is because we fail to appreciate the dignity of the individual that we burden policemen, doctors and teachers with bureaucracy and turn them from their individual talents into faceless bureaucrats. It is because we fail to trust the dignity of the person that we keep raising taxes. It is because we fail to respect the dignity of the individual that famine, disease, torture, terrorism, persecution, oppression and tyranny continue to plague the world. It is because we do not emphasise the dignity of the individual that slavery continues, despite William Wilberforce’s best efforts.

Conservatism is the only political philosophy that truly respects the dignity of the individual. Libertarianism pretends to, but ultimately – because it is individualistic – it destroys the dignity of the individual. New Labour tries to legislate for dignity, which ultimately demonstrates a failure to respect it. I love my neighbour not because the State tells me to, but because I respect his dignity. Socialism, Communism and Fascism manifestly disregard the dignity of the individual.

So while freedom – of belief, of opportunity, of enterprise – and freedom from fear – are core Conservative values and ones which I am wedded to, they are not in themselves enough. Indeed, without given a framework and a context, they may scare people. Perhaps that has been our problem. They need to be coupled with “responsibility”. We need to give our values a context – and that context is “dignity” for everyone.